> At 11:18 AM 11/2/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> janice matchett wrote:
>>
>>> At 08:58 AM 11/2/2005, Ted Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> /"When the whole argument is about whether or not the a priori
>>>> restriction against intelligence is appropriate, then it isn't an
>>>> answer just to say that intelligence isn't the answer--but that's
>>>> the answer a lot of scientists will give. ..."/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ### Exactly.
>>>
>>> "God *couldn't have* done it" is a premise fit for an extremist.
>>>
>>> Yet that same extremist will make fun of the one who says, "God
>>> *must have* done it".
>>
>>
>> God couldn't have done it is as "extreme" as God must have done it.
>> *Neither one, scientifically speaking has any relevance. * However,
>> there are some real problems here. First of all, there are no a
>> priori restrictions against intelligence. But 'God did it' is no
>> scientific answer since there is no way to constrain what God can or
>> cannot do.*/ /*It's scientifically vacuous.*/ /*Just like intelligent
>> design as presently formulated in an eliminative format.
>
>
> ### Better get some better PR people to put the face on "science",
> then. The people who are most vocal out there running around on your
> bahalf right now are either atheists or other confused mentalities who
> reject the law of noncontradiction. Here is merely *one* of your
> most vocal PR agents in all his glory:
>
Still missing the point. Did you read what I wrote. God did it is as
scientifically vacuous as God did not do it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
-P
Received on Wed Nov 2 23:35:44 2005